He goes from looking like Francis Ford Coppola to Peter Jackson to Allen Ginsberg to a fat Kevin Dillon to a Star Wars era George Lucas

Having your taint tickled with a q-tip

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Interesting. You know what I like.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Don't know if you've seen this, but I thought you might enjoy it.

btw I like the music that plays on your profile page. Quite enjoyable.

Interesting. You know what I like.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Don't know if you've seen this, but I thought you might enjoy it.

btw I like the music that plays on your profile page. Quite enjoyable.

Don't know if you've seen this, but I thought you might enjoy it.

btw I like the music that plays on your profile page. Quite enjoyable.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

Personally, I'm fed up with having the same f'ing argument with creationists over and over again, blowing their pathetic arguments out of the water, and having them still desperately scramble to make any and every lame excuse as to why they shouldn't stop believing in their fairy tales. F@#k creationists. I'm done trying to have reasonable conversations with the unreasonable.

I want to hear them all!
Art Linklatter
Mitzi Gaynor
Boris Karloff, especially!
? James
Fred MacMurray
Janet Morgan (I don't know who she is)
Craig ?
Johnny
Tony Bennett
Howard Duff
Connie Francis
Pat Boone

>> ^bobknight33:

Loving someone enough to tell them that what they are doing is wrong is a good thing. Turning your head and letting wrong behavior continue doesn't help anyone.
Sadly the younger generation has been fed such a pack a moral lies that they don't know the difference between right and wrong.
For the most part what is morally right today was morally wrong 30 years ago. Has man obtained such wisdom in this short period of time to discount the wisdom of the past thousand years?
>> ^bareboards2:
What I find is that some Christians are quick to call it "evil" when more truly loving folk call it "compassion" and "acceptance of diversity."


"Believe me my boy, there is no grey. The world is either black or white!"

When you quote the bible, why do you call it the wisdom of the past thousand years? The bible was written around 300AD. And do you really think that a group of self-proclaimed holy-spirit-hearers 1700 years ago, or some group of clergymen more concerned with the exploitation of their flock than anything to do with love and compassion in 1100AD have the wisdom to judge how we ought to live our lives today?

A lot of the stuff that was considered morally upright 50 years ago is rightfully considered repugnant today.

The true wisdom doesn't lie in trying to find a framework of absolute, unchanging rules by which to live to the end of times. Rather it lies in recognizing that time changes things, and rules have to change with them and constantly be reassessed if they still apply.

The only two rules which I would consider fundamental in inter-personal relationships are:

• Don't treat people like objects (aka treat the other person as you yourself would like to be treated)


• My rights end where your rights begin and vice versa

And while we're at it - consider why the Old Testament is so pro fertility ("Go forth and multiply" or all the anti-homosexual rants). 3500 years ago small semitic tribes were being encouraged to grow rapidly to have a chance to survive in a hostile world where huge enemies where to the south (Egypt) and east (Babylonians/Sumerians) and whoever happened to live to the north at the time. All of whom regularly held their battles where the semitic tribes were living, and all of whom frequently raided the area for slaves. Rules devised for that kind of circumstances ought to no longer be regarded as dogma, in my opinion.

"The head is round so that your thoughts can change direction."
- Francis Picabia, 1922

Thanks for the double, NR! Francis nails it with this one.
In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
*doublepromote

Thanks for the quality

In reply to this comment by LarsaruS:
*quality

There's also a comic going on (Think the comics they did for the Engineer and solder/demo) that can be found Here

There's 3 parts to it with a 4th coming october 5th.

First part explains louis' backstory, second explains Zoeys, Third explains Francis' (and how they get to new orleans) and the fourth will explain all about Bill.

Some of these rape jokes are a bit weak. I actually prefer the one-liner zingers of Stuart Francis.

I hate replicas. </Francis>

She's the opposite of Francis

I guess what I'm trying to say is that belief in religious claims is completely and utterly irrational, not because there isnt sufficient evidence to meet a scientific standard, but because there is NO evidence at all. None. One of the many problems with accepting subjective experience in this context is the simple fact that we have several religions, and that some of their claims are directly in conflict. (Islam is pretty clear that anyone who believes Jesus is the son of God will end up in hell, and both of these religions are clear on what happens to any non-abrahamic believers etc.) If we were to take into account a mere 2 believers and their subjective experience with god, we'd be back to square one almost immediately. A bit like forever determining the best ice-cream flavor. Ironically, if there was a god who communicated with individuals , then subjective evidence would actually be interesting. However, since believers cant seem to agree on what god it is and what its saying, all we have is noise.

In other words we need some input, some kind of evidence that doesnt contradict itself or prove utterly unreliable, and here, anything would really be of interest. Bring it on. I'm waiting, and I'd be thrilled to see some, and I wont be picky. I promise.

I am perfectly aware that many scientists have religious convictions, but this fails to impact the truth of these claims. Scientists are humans, and humans are prone to superstition and being wrong. What we can say, however, is that the percentage of religious people drops dramatically among the educated. People like Francis Collins are clearly among the exceptions. And all I can say about his rationale for his rather evangelical beliefs is that they are laughably childish and silly.


In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Skepticism doesn't just require evidence for belief, it requires overwhelming evidence and hence any change will be slow (there are still scientists arguing against global warming).

Ironically, I think you could look at religious people as reverse-skeptics. Where a skeptic will not believe anything without overwhelming evidence to support it, a religious person will not change their belief in something without overwhelming evidence that the belief is wrong. And this, I suppose, is the main reason why skeptics and believers simply cannot agree with each other. There is not enough (I would say any, actually) reliable evidence (objective or subjective) to convince either side. How could there be? Most skeptics discount subjective knowledge (their own included) right from the start. Everyone is arguing over apples and oranges.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sage, francismullet, beatbox, spoken, word' to 'sage francis, mullet, beatbox, spoken word' - edited by eric3579